Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dayuhan who wrote (106799)	7/20/2003 11:04:07 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 281500

Sixteen Little Words, my As*terisk ______________________ by Linda McQuaig Published on Sunday, July 20, 2003 by the Toronto Star As the controversy builds over allegations that the White House misled the American people into waging war against Iraq, the latest line of defence seems to be that the deception wasn't that serious — it was, after all, only 16 words long. "Just 16 little words," as one media commentator described them, apparently trying to trivialize the controversy over a forged document that threatens to engulf George W. Bush's presidency. But the 16 little words — "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" — weren't just a casual, off-hand comment. Rather, they were a key part of a tightly-scripted speech aimed at making the administration's case that Saddam posed a nuclear threat, and they were delivered by the president at no less an event than the State of the Union address, watched on TV by millions around the world. Are 16 words enough to cause a scandal? Depends on the words. What if Bush had said the following 16 words in his State of the Union address: "The constitution is null and void. I'm now king. If anyone contests this, bring him on." There were other misleading statements in that State of the Union address; we'll focus here only on the statement known to be based on a forgery. CIA director George Tenet has been offered up as the fall guy. After the White House pinned the blame on him, he accepted responsibility for not vetting the false statement from the address. Although, God knows, he tried. In secret testimony last week to the Senate Intelligence Committee, Tenet made clear he had discouraged the use of the false statement, but that an official from the White House insisted it be included. So who is that mystery White House official? Tenet named the official, according to Senator Dick Durbin, who said confidentiality rules prevent him from revealing it. Fair enough. But no rules prevent George Bush from revealing it. For that matter, isn't Bush hopping mad at this underling who played fast and loose with his presidential credibility — unless, of course, the underling is that overling, Vice-President Dick Cheney. In which case Bush is probably too scared to raise the matter. (It's also possible that Bush knew about the forgery too.) Cheney took an unusually keen interest in intelligence about Iraq, paying several visits to the CIA to demand a more "forward-leaning" interpretation of the threat Saddam posed, the London Guardian reported last week. When Cheney wasn't pressuring the CIA personally, his chief of staff, Lewis Libby, was. The Guardian noted that the vice-president's hands-on involvement in intelligence was "unprecedented" in recent times. Cheney also worked closely with a shadow intelligence unit, called the Office of Special Plans, which was set up by Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and staffed mostly by right-wingers with no background in intelligence work. The Guardian noted that, while the CIA's policy is to sort through raw intelligence data from agents and informants around the world and weed out anything unsubstantiated, the shadow intelligence unit was encouraged to hold onto everything, no matter how far-fetched. Intelligence on Iraq was of particular interest. White House supporters are trying to suggest this is just a case of a minor error slipping through a big bureaucracy, that the administration is, at worst, guilty of sloppiness. But there's nothing insignificant or haphazard about what happened. Somebody deliberately forged a document and, despite warnings from the head of the CIA, it ended up as a key piece of evidence supporting the president's case for war. Who did the forgery? Was forgery part of the bag of tricks adopted by the ideologues in the shadow intelligence unit, in their zeal to deliver the more "forward-leaning" interpretation of Saddam's intentions that the vice-president so clearly wanted? Let's not forget that this administration was hell-bent on invading Iraq, even after U.N. inspectors had scoured the country for months, unable to find evidence of a weapons program. Brushing aside the inspectors, the United Nations and most of the world, the White House insisted the danger Saddam posed was so great that immediate action was required, and it launched a full military attack on what turned out to be an unarmed country. Thousands died; more are still dying over there. What we've seen is a lie of staggering import. Or to put it another way: Sixteen little words, my eye. ________________________________ Linda McQuaig is a Toronto-based author and political commentator. Copyright 1996-2003. Toronto Star Newspapers Limited commondreams.org

To: Dayuhan who wrote (106799)	7/21/2003 1:09:07 AM
From: Bilow	Respond to of 281500

Hi Steven Rogers; Re: "Why shouldn't we choose the most accomplished, knowledgeable, and educated people to lead us?" Bush certainly isn't knowledgeable or even truly educated. He's somewhat accomplished, but then again, his daddy was President. Let's put this into perspective. Here's some examples of leaders who were "accomplished, knowledgeable and educated", at least according to the standards of their time: Abraham Lincoln -- Self educated lawyer, he worked his way up through politics with no family advantages. Winston Churchill -- Generally classed as one of the better writers of his time, Churchill possessed a quick wit. George W Bush -- A man whose motto is "even C students can be President", Bush is commonly referred to as a "moron" by foreign leaders. Bush followed his father into politics. Re: "I'd rather be led by those who have demonstrated their competence than by Joe sixpack, or by someone who has never accomplished anything without aid from an influential family." So would I, but I voted for Bush anyway. At the time, I thought he'd do better than Gore. I won't make that mistake twice. -- Carl

To: Dayuhan who wrote (106799)	7/21/2003 1:18:11 AM
From: GST	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Did you know that Rice did not bother to read the most basic briefing on terrorism threats passed on by Sandy Beger, until AFTER 9/11 -- you know, the ones that warned of the emerging outlines of what became 9/11 -- does that seems strange to you. Was terrorism not a national security issue before 9/11. Did it take an attack to make it worth finding a few minutes to read the breifs? Even more more strange, why didn't she bother to read the key NIE report even as she advised the President as the United States weighed the decision of whether or not to go to war? Why does she still have a job in Washington? Further -- we do not know who forged the fake uranium documents -- who would benefit from planting these documents? Anybody in Washington? Has anybody in the White House investigated the source of these documents to see if they came from Washington "players"? Has anybody in the White House been investigated as a source? Dick Cheney had the forged claim investigated but did not say anything about the forgeries to Bush -- do you think the Vice President of the United States does not see the State of the Union Address in advance? Did Cheney actively conceal evidence of the forgeries or simply not mention it to Bush? Why does he still have a job in the White House? Personally, I wonder whether or not he has a deeper role with respect to these forged documents -- that remains to be seen.

To: Dayuhan who wrote (106799)	7/21/2003 3:06:43 AM
From: epicure	Respond to of 281500

I think we agree. I want someone who will do a good job- I don't care where they come from- elite, non-elite, Venus, Mars, Betelgeuse. I think epithets are designed to stop people from thinking about who is best for the job. Epithets which apply to people are always an appeal to prejudice- and the people who use them hope that a certain percentage of the people in earshot (or eyeshot- in case of the printed word) will close down their critical thinking functions and nod approvingly with the epithet.